Guidebook for

Structural Approaches to

Integrated Pest Management

Prepared by

Dr. Mitchell D. Allen Boston Housing Authority

2009

Forward

The following booklet is intended to act as a written and visual guide for finding structural solutions to pest problems. The Boston Housing Authority’s Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) has had great success in reducing the root causes to pest infestation in public housing and reducing the level of pesticide usage. This booklet is designed to help those who utilize IPM programs to take a further step. In that sense, it is meant as the first word on the subject, not the last. I expect to add to this as additional problems and solutions are developed. The origins of this effort are traceable back to conversations I had with Don Rivard as far back as 2002, when the original BHA IPM program was being developed. The more immediate source came as a result of renewed conversations I had with John Kane and Lori Luce, both of the BHA and both primarily responsible for the success of IPM at the Boston Housing Authority. John was able to secure funding for this project from the Kellogg Grant and offer excellent advice. Lori helped shepherd the project from the beginning, with everything from advice to editing. The bulk of the source material and development of methodology came from Watch-All, an excellent IPM vendor located in Weymouth, MA. Watch-All has been our principle IPM vendor at the BHA, and has a matchless understanding of the problems associated with the structural aspects of Integrated Pest Management. They began as a construction company and evolved into a pest control provider as a result of repairing termite damage. Thus, their approach to pest problems focuses on the structural aspects. Most of the pictures that follow come from their files, as do all of the solutions. My thanks go to Lori Luce, John Kane and Gail Livingston of the Boston Housing Authority for lending their aid in getting this done. It also goes to Jon Boyar and Doug Hayes of Watch-All for their expertise and information. Behind these people stands a larger group of people who warrant both a larger description and my thanks. The Healthy Pest Free Housing Initiative (HPFHI) is a collaborative project aimed at reducing pest infestation and pesticide use in public housing in Boston. HPFHI is funded with support from the W.K Kellogg Foundation and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The primary focus of HPFHI is implementation of integrated pest management (IPM), a safer and more effective alternative to traditional pest control, that relies on residents, managers and pest control companies working together to reduce pest infestation. This booklet is the logical outcome of this initiative. Partners include the Boston Public Health Commission which serves as the lead agency, Committee for Boston Public Housing, the West Broadway Task Force, the Boston Housing Authority, the Boston University School of Public Health, the Asthma Regional Council, the Massachusetts Public Health Association, and the Boston Urban Asthma Coalition. Mitch Allen Project Manager Capital Construction Department Boston Housing Authority

1

Introduction To

Structural Integrated Pest Management

General: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a systematic strategy for eliminating pests. It focuses upon eliminating the root causes of infestation, in preference to simply applying chemicals for a short term result. It is a more structured, detailed, and long-term approach which sometimes costs more money in the beginning, but saves much more in the end. In addition, by reducing dependence upon the use of chemical pesticides, IPM is considered to be a part of the Green Movement. The root cause of all infestation can be traced to the needs common to all living things: food, water and shelter. By the elimination of each of these needs, the infestation will ultimately cease. However, this elimination requires the cooperation of anyone living or working on the site, and thus includes the Capital Construction Department. This Guide is intended to supply project managers and construction superintendents with practical information on how to advance this goal. The BHA Situation: The Boston Housing Authority, like all entities containing a transient population, is particularly vulnerable to pest infestation. This vulnerability is compounded by aging structures and an often indifferent and uninformed tenant population and building staff. Such a combination would seem to make the BHA a poor choice for an IPM strategy, but where the program has been correctly applied and backed by adequate training, it has proved successful in fairly short order. Prior to the implementation of an IPM program, a typical BHA building manager would use a standard extermination contract with any of a wide range of contractors. Results would vary in the short term, but in the long term, nothing would change. The pesticides might “harvest” a lot of pests, but those pest not contacted by the pesticide would ultimately reappear and the cycle would begin again. The only people that benefited were the exterminators, who essentially had a captive client. The core of the problem in such a situation is this: each of the three parties involved, namely the exterminator, the building (and its staff), and the tenant population, were in a position where each could plausibly blame the other two. The exterminator, when given a “call back” for a failure to adequately reduce the pest population, could easily blame the tenant’s living habits and/or the building condition. The tenants, likewise, could blame the building, its incompetent staff, and the incompetent exterminator. The BHA staff, similarly, could point fingers at the other two using the exact same arguments. Since no one could definitively pin the blame anywhere, the exterminator had a free ride. Visually, one could portray this issue like this:

2

In essence, the pest population exists here, at the nexus of these three groups. Since the true elimination of a pest problem requires cooperation in the areas where these responsibilities overlap, no real progress was ever made. The goal, then, is to eliminate this overlap, and define responsibilities. The BHA Solution: The BHA’s approach to solving this problem is actually pretty simple. We cannot fire the building itself, or all of it’s staff, nor can we chase out all of the tenants. What the BHA can do is to change the responsibility of the contractor from extermination to documentation. The core of every IPM program is to document the source of infestation through the placement of bait traps and other methods to pinpoint the root causes. By monitoring the traps, the IPM Contractor can determine whether the cause of the problem is the building itself, poor cleaning habits by the tenants, incompetent maintenance by the staff, or what have you. If the contractor notes building-related problems, such as open pipe chases, standing water, and dirty trash chutes, these should generate the appropriate work orders or Site Initiatives. Larger structural problems become the province of CCD. Poor tenant living habits should result in intervention by the Building Staff or Social Services, as needed. Ultimately, it could (and has) resulted in eviction. Building Staff shortcomings should result in training or better supervision. The IPM Contractor may also choose to apply some limited forms of pesticides, but usually in a much more limited and ‘tactical’ sense than an exterminator ‘flush out.’ In each case, the basis of action stands upon the evidence created by IPM Contractors documentation. CCD’s Role: The bulk of BHA IPM work is carried out by Operations, of course. The Preventive Maintenance Supervisors often work in conjunction with Building Staff to develop a program and to hire the right contractor and conduct tenant and staff training. The Capital Construction Department has at least one role, and potentially more, that would support Operations. At the first and most basic level, a CCD Project Manager should be in contact with the relevant Operations personnel to learn what, if any, IPM program may be in place at any site that he or she is intending to conduct work. There is more to this than simple

Tenant

B Exterminator

Building

3

courtesy—the wrong step by a contractor can undo years’ worth of patient and expensive IPM work. For example, if a plumbing contractor is working in the basement of a building, and chooses to “bomb” or “fog” the work area, he will probably chase a pest population back into areas where they have been previously eliminated. This will essentially destroy the documentation effort outlined previously. At a more technical level, most of the pest treatments (such as gel baits) used in IPM work are designed to attract pests, and then attack their reproductive systems and so forth. They are relatively expensive and meant to have a long duration. Conversely, most insecticides are designed to repel pests or to kill on contact. When the spray of fogs coats gel baits, they effectively neutralize them. Thus, the BHA ends up paying for the work several times over with little to show for it. Beyond communication, the Capital Construction Department can potentially incorporate other IPM-friendly practices into its own work. This can exist at the design level, by requesting that our consultants these practices within their design specifications. On a construction level, there are numerous practical measures that can be taken. These will be outlined below. Design As noted previously, the first thing a project manager should do is to direct the consultant to contact the development management staff to ascertain whether an IPM program is in place, and the nature of the work being done. The development staff will likely put the consultant in contact with the IPM vendor who shall, in turn, inform the consultant as to what, if any, specific measures need to be taken to limit any disruption to the IPM program. This may be as simple as the consultant specify who is to be called if a contractor is doing work in certain areas, or as detailed as including certain provisions with the construction documents. An example of the latter would be a building envelope job. In consultation with the IPM vendor, the A/E could call for certain materials to be used when filling any exterior wall penetrations, the use of door sweeps, and other methods of preventing pest access to buildings. Certain specific construction problems recur in pest control. These primarily relate to pest access and harborage. To human beings, walls represent obstacles that impede movement. To a pest, whether it is an insect, bird or rodent, interior and exterior walls represent a highway that can allow travel throughout much of the building, and frustrate attempts at pest elimination. Thus, the need to focus on sealing joints and penetrations is paramount. While most specifications include language to this effect to some degree, this language may need to be strengthened and the supervisory personnel be made aware of the need to document that the work was done appropriately. What follows below is a copy of the Directive issued by the Boston Housing Authority’s Capital Construction Department on January 5th, 2009. It contains the approach to be followed in this effort:

4

CCD DIRECTIVE 08-001 Date: January 5, 2009 To: CCD Staff From: Shirley Ransom, Director Capital Construction Department Subject: Integrated Pest Management 0.0 General. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a systematic strategy for

eliminating pests. It focuses upon eliminating the root causes of infestation, in preference to simply applying chemicals for a short term result. It is a more structured, detailed, and long-term approach which sometimes costs more money in the beginning, but saves much more in the end. CCD has a role to play in the BHA’s IPM initiative.

1.0 Planning

A. Include discussion of IPM conditions as an integral part of capital planning B. IPM Program. Review status of program for the site with Operations. Confirm

nature, location(s) and extent of current infestation, preferably in writing. 2.0 Design

A. Existing Conditions Report. Review shall note all areas likely to be effected

by any new work, including, but not be limited to, evaluation of the following:

1. Name and Contact Information of current IPM Contractor 2. Current Level of Infestation in the work area and adjacent areas as

reported by IPM Contractor. 3. Schedule for future IPM treatments. 4. List of any pest control products currently in use.

B. General Design Issues. The principle focus of this directive is to reduce pest

infestation by means of reducing pest access to food, water, and harborage. All of the items in the General Design Section should be approached with this in mind. Specific practices included but not limited to the following:

1. Seal all pipe chases, electrical lines, wire mold or other wall, floor or

ceiling penetrations that connect apartment to apartment or room to room with copper wool, caulking, or foam filler as appropriate, and cap with an escutcheon plate when possible.

5

2. Seal all ducts and return air lines. Install and seal screens over all vent

openings

3. Use gaskets behind wall outlet covers and switch plates (the type used to prevent air infiltration).

4. Preference is to be given to straight base over cove base.

5. Require the use of silicon caulk to seal edges between counter tops and

walls, around tubs and between lavatories and walls.

6. All coring abandoned within the scope of work shall be sealed with concrete or other approved material and made to match surrounding surfaces. Otherwise utilize approved non-deteriorating materials and match surrounding surfaces.

7. Utilize solid core doors where possible.

8. Utilize door sweeps where possible

9. All floor drains to have sturdy replaceable metal grates.

10. Insulate all piping prone to condensation.

11. Utilize low sodium (yellow) lighting instead of high UV lighting.

12. For all Site work, see CCD Directive 06-02 Plant Materials, Landscaping, Sitework and Site Restoration.

13. Call for dumpsters with side openings and metal covers.

14. For roofing work, include in scope of work investigation and repair all

soffits and fascia, and inspect for any openings that would allow pest access.

15. Utilize leaf guard type gutters.

16. Investigate suitability of “bird spikes” in areas where birds roost.

17. When work requires the opening of any void in the walls or behind

cabinetry where pests can gain access, utilize ¼” galvanized steel cloth (rat wire) to cover opening, unless spec calls for a complete repair of hole.

18. Sort debris as per laws governing same. Remove as frequently as

practical.

6

3.0 Construction

A. Kick-Off Meeting. As part of the first site meeting review IPM requirements and current conditions

B. Weekly Job Meetings. Track IPM issues weekly and include in report. C. Construction. Pay close attention to items effected by the work to the

following:

1. Seal all holes at openings caused by the work. 2. Plug all holes at the end of the shift if work remains incomplete, in

situations where the opening would allow pest access.

3. Sort Debris as per laws governing same. Remove as frequently as practical.

C. Close Out.

1. Punch List: Pay special attention to unsealed openings in walls, floors, and ceilings

2. Training of site staff for new landscape and other systems associated with the project.

End of Directive. This represents the minimum of what the Project Manager should address. In terms of actual construction practices, certain areas of interest should also be highlighted. Construction This includes work done both with contractors on a Capital upgrade basis, as well as unit turnover done by Operations. Certain recurring problems and their solutions are worth highlighting at this point. Radiators: The BHA has many buildings that use cast-iron radiators. They are difficult to work around during any sort of unit turnover, and as a result, the portion of the room in which they stand is usually in the poorest condition. Additionally, the fact that radiators emit moisture and require wall or floor penetrations make them attractive to pests and facilitate their access to other parts of the building. Cracked paint, rotted floors, and other structural issues remain unattended due to the difficulty of working around the radiator.

7

The solution is to remove the radiator and effect proper repairs. Damaged flooring can be replaced with marine plywood (where appropriate) and other issues addressed as needed. Kitchens: Kitchens naturally draw pests because of the proximity of food and moisture. Cabinetry and appliances offer excellent harborage, while unsealed pipe chases and wall void other access. While appliances, strictly speaking are not ‘structural’ in nature, the owner can aid in pest control by specifying the use of wheeled appliances, and, where possible, use of electric stoves in lieu of gas. Electric stoves are easier and safer for residents to pull out and clean behind and under. Cabinetry should have industrial-strength caulk applied at all joints, such as where the cabinet contacts the floor and walls. Wall voids should be covered with ¾” Rat Wire prior to the installation of cabinetry. In cases of known infestation, it may be beneficial to apply tracking powder or gel bait in voids as well. Sinks should be given a heavy bead of water-proof industrial caulk under the lip prior to installation. Any caulk that ‘oozes’ out can be cleaned before it dries. Counter tops should be one-piece, i.e., have an attached backsplash. Water that lies on the counter top inevitably infiltrates the joint between the counter top and backsplash. Walls and Floors As noted previously, walls serve as a highway for pests, rather than an obstacle. The critical part is the joint where the wall meets the floor. In an internal wall made of wood and drywall, the bottom plate is not usually 100% ‘tight’ against the floor. Uneven floors and the natural bends in wood prevent this from being possible. Similarly, the drywall panels that are hung on the frame often have a gap along the bottom edge, creating an access point. All of this is usually concealed with cove base. This combination allows insects to migrate beneath walls. Wherever possible, particularly along uneven floors, attempts should be made to seal that void. Cove base offers harborage, and should be replaced with straight base. In all cases, a tight seal is necessary. Conclusions: The details of the application of structural solutions to Integrated Pest Management are potentially endless, while generalizations do not always lend themselves to practical application. Therefore, we have attached the following photographs with labels indicating a specific problem and solution. It is hoped that this series of examples will serve to illustrate the thinking that goes into developing and effective plan to reduce pest problems in our buildings. The reader will notice that all problems and solutions involve the removing the requirements to support pest life: food, water, access, and harborage. Project managers and constructions superintendents should both realize that this Guide and the information therein are suggestions only, and do not constitute absolute requirements. The practical applications should be handled on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis particular to the needs of each site, and the funding available for each project.